bugontherug:In that case, you have no idea either. Or even that his head hit the pavement at all. If we can't reason from the medical evidence, we're left with Zimmerman's word. And his word means nothing.

Of course I have no idea how hard his head hit, never said I did. All we know is that Zimmerman said that his head struck the pavement more than once and that Trayvon was responsible for it. The evidence at the scene supports his version of events. Grass on his back, lacerations to the back of his head, and an eyewitness. What more would you like?

QueenMamaBee:Mid_mo_mad_man: QueenMamaBee: For those of y'all who think GZ was perfectly justified.... I'd like to see how many of you would like to go out and pick random people and follow them. See how often that behavior results in an ass-beating.

So I guess then you could kill those people and be perfectly justified?

Following someone warrants a beating? What kinda white trash trailer park you from? If I'm following you and you turn around and start hitting me your are the agressor. And yes I would shoot you.

If I'm doing nothing wrong, and you keep following me no matter how many times I try to lose you then I'm going to assume you mean to harm me in some way, and yes, I will hit you or pepper spray you. If we happen to be walking the same way on the sidewalk, that's one thing. If I duck off the path and away from you and you keep following, then YOU seem to be the one exhibiting "suspicious behavior".

No, you're the one being suspicious, ducking away from someone who may or may not be following you.You turn around and hit them or pepper spray them then you're going to jail for battery, or ending up with serious injuries/dead for randomly attacking someone for no reasonNo, them following you is not a reason. Sorry.

bugontherug:The real conjecture here is that Trayvon started a fight, or did anything other than defend himself against a hostile lethally armed assailant who hunted and harassed him for no good reason.

Because Treyvon Martin doubled back simply to thank Zimmerman for keeping the neighborhood safe.

Proved by his chasing of Trayvon after the boy ran. There is non-hearsay evidence that he chased Trayvon. We can infer it, as did the police dispatcher, from the sounds of a chase through the phone line. I suppose we have to rely on Zimmerman's other statements in the course of that conversation to give us the context which proves that. So it may be fair to say that Zimmmerman's willingness to confront, as evidenced by his decision to chase Trayvon, is hearsay.

Popcorn Johnny:bugontherug: In that case, you have no idea either. Or even that his head hit the pavement at all. If we can't reason from the medical evidence, we're left with Zimmerman's word. And his word means nothing.

Of course I have no idea how hard his head hit, never said I did. All we know is that Zimmerman said that his head struck the pavement more than once and that Trayvon was responsible for it. The evidence at the scene supports his version of events. Grass on his back, lacerations to the back of his head, and an eyewitness. What more would you like?

He wants to know the exact impact force, angle, and repetition of Zimmerman's head hitting the sidewalk because he's an anal little monkey that can't figure out that the single act of hitting someone's head on the sidewalk, regardless of how hard, constitutes lethal force and can be met with lethal force.

QueenMamaBee:Mid_mo_mad_man: QueenMamaBee: For those of y'all who think GZ was perfectly justified.... I'd like to see how many of you would like to go out and pick random people and follow them. See how often that behavior results in an ass-beating.

So I guess then you could kill those people and be perfectly justified?

Following someone warrants a beating? What kinda white trash trailer park you from? If I'm following you and you turn around and start hitting me your are the agressor. And yes I would shoot you.

If I'm doing nothing wrong, and you keep following me no matter how many times I try to lose you then I'm going to assume you mean to harm me in some way, and yes, I will hit you or pepper spray you. If we happen to be walking the same way on the sidewalk, that's one thing. If I duck off the path and away from you and you keep following, then YOU seem to be the one exhibiting "suspicious behavior".

First I'm assuming your a woman correct?. If your being chased by guy most sensible ladies ( which I doubt you are) would be on thier phone with 911 if they felt scared. Or banging on a house door or screaming her lungs off. Martin also could have done theese things if felt scared. The fact that he didn't. He even said to his gf he was going to confront Zimmerman. He wasn't scared but mad and wanting to hurt Zimmerman

bugontherug:The dispatcher testified yesterday--and the recording verifies--that he continued to hear noises suggesting movement even after he suggested Zimmerman stop following Trayvon. At no time did he hear door chimes or a car door opening and closing after that.

I agree that the recording doesn't suggest at all that Zimmerman was headed back to his truck. (Don't know where people are getting that idea.) But, the recording does strongly suggest that Zimmerman quit following Martin less than five seconds after the dispatcher's suggestion that he need not follow. The walking/wind sounds stop as Zimmerman reiterates that Martin fled, and then Zimmerman and the dispatcher go on to have a nearly two minute conversation. Zimmerman could have been standing, pacing back and forth, or even walking around during this time, but I don't think even the prosecution is going to claim he was "in pursuit" at that time.

Martin had this nearly two minutes to get home, which is enough time to do it several times over if he was running. While he was under no legal obligation to return home, it brings up the question of his whereabouts, if he was hiding, and what his intentions were. We will never know if--after the phone call ended--Martin came out from hiding to confront Zimmerman, or if Zimmerman stumbled upon him while milling about, or if Zimmerman restarted his pursuit of Martin.

At this point, the whole case hinges on whether the jury will believe Zimmerman was intentionally and aggressively trying to hunt down Martin and make him pay for all of the "bad guys" that previously slipped through his fingers. That is their entire case, and they have a huge hill to climb to prove it. The previous phone calls suggest Zimmerman was calm, cautious and even took steps to avoid engaging the suspicious people he was reporting. The fact that he got out of the SUV can easily be interpreted as an attempt to be helpful and give the dispatcher information.

Following a guy around the corner while on the phone with the police means he was willing to confront Trayvon? Can you help me out with a flow chart or something, I'm just not seeing your logic.

If Zimmerman wanted to confront Trayvon, he had many opportunities to do so. The only reason he exited his vehicle was because Trayvon took off running and disappeared around a corner. If you're calling to report a suspicious person, you might want to keep that person in sight so that you can report their location to the police when they arrive.

ChaosStar:Popcorn Johnny: bugontherug: In that case, you have no idea either. Or even that his head hit the pavement at all. If we can't reason from the medical evidence, we're left with Zimmerman's word. And his word means nothing.

Of course I have no idea how hard his head hit, never said I did. All we know is that Zimmerman said that his head struck the pavement more than once and that Trayvon was responsible for it. The evidence at the scene supports his version of events. Grass on his back, lacerations to the back of his head, and an eyewitness. What more would you like?

He wants to know the exact impact force, angle, and repetition of Zimmerman's head hitting the sidewalk because he's an anal little monkey that can't figure out that the single act of hitting someone's head on the sidewalk, regardless of how hard, constitutes lethal force and can be met with lethal force.

You said monkey and you're defending Zimmerman. I am aware of your motivations and am appalled sir

Abuse Liability:ChaosStar: Popcorn Johnny: bugontherug: In that case, you have no idea either. Or even that his head hit the pavement at all. If we can't reason from the medical evidence, we're left with Zimmerman's word. And his word means nothing.

Of course I have no idea how hard his head hit, never said I did. All we know is that Zimmerman said that his head struck the pavement more than once and that Trayvon was responsible for it. The evidence at the scene supports his version of events. Grass on his back, lacerations to the back of his head, and an eyewitness. What more would you like?

He wants to know the exact impact force, angle, and repetition of Zimmerman's head hitting the sidewalk because he's an anal little monkey that can't figure out that the single act of hitting someone's head on the sidewalk, regardless of how hard, constitutes lethal force and can be met with lethal force.

You said monkey and you're defending Zimmerman. I am aware of your motivations and am appalled sir

Grow up! Defending Zimmerman doesn't make one racist. If screaming racist is all you got go home

Abuse Liability:ChaosStar: Popcorn Johnny: bugontherug: In that case, you have no idea either. Or even that his head hit the pavement at all. If we can't reason from the medical evidence, we're left with Zimmerman's word. And his word means nothing.

Of course I have no idea how hard his head hit, never said I did. All we know is that Zimmerman said that his head struck the pavement more than once and that Trayvon was responsible for it. The evidence at the scene supports his version of events. Grass on his back, lacerations to the back of his head, and an eyewitness. What more would you like?

He wants to know the exact impact force, angle, and repetition of Zimmerman's head hitting the sidewalk because he's an anal little monkey that can't figure out that the single act of hitting someone's head on the sidewalk, regardless of how hard, constitutes lethal force and can be met with lethal force.

You said monkey and you're defending Zimmerman. I am aware of your motivations and am appalled sir

Cute, except the word "monkey" was used as descriptive of the poster here bugontherug, not Treyvon Martin. Fail!

ChaosStar:QueenMamaBee: Mid_mo_mad_man: QueenMamaBee: For those of y'all who think GZ was perfectly justified.... I'd like to see how many of you would like to go out and pick random people and follow them. See how often that behavior results in an ass-beating.

So I guess then you could kill those people and be perfectly justified?

Following someone warrants a beating? What kinda white trash trailer park you from? If I'm following you and you turn around and start hitting me your are the agressor. And yes I would shoot you.

If I'm doing nothing wrong, and you keep following me no matter how many times I try to lose you then I'm going to assume you mean to harm me in some way, and yes, I will hit you or pepper spray you. If we happen to be walking the same way on the sidewalk, that's one thing. If I duck off the path and away from you and you keep following, then YOU seem to be the one exhibiting "suspicious behavior".

No, you're the one being suspicious, ducking away from someone who may or may not be following you.You turn around and hit them or pepper spray them then you're going to jail for battery, or ending up with serious injuries/dead for randomly attacking someone for no reasonNo, them following you is not a reason. Sorry.

If they're not following me when I duck away, then end of problem. They're not there anymore. However, if I'm minding my own business and some fool starts tailing me, then more than likely their motives aren't pure. I wouldn't at all mind explaining my reasoning to the police while they're washing the pepper spray from the dude's eyes. If I'm walking from the store to my house, and I feel like the person is following me, then I'd rather not lead creepy guy to my front door. So I change direction... if he's not really chasing me, then he's not going to change direction when I do, and no problem. If he is chasing me, then I don't have much to lose by spraying him in the face, am i?

DrBrownCow:At this point, the whole case hinges on whether the jury will believe Zimmerman was intentionally and aggressively trying to hunt down Martin and make him pay for all of the "bad guys" that previously slipped through his fingers.

Lets just assume this is the case, it has no bearing whatsoever on what Zimmerman is charged with.MurderZimmerman clearly didn't have his gun out, because who starts a fist fight with a gun wielding person outside of Hollywood? He has injuries, but Martin has a scratch, which tells you Martin had to start the fight and the fight was pretty much one sided (Martin's), and his injuries are consistent with being hit with something like the concrete he claims.That's deadly force.What Zimmerman's attitude was is irrelevant. Even if he was a racist, bigot, asshole angrily running after Martin, calling him every slur in the book that doesn't mean Martin can beat him to death on the sidewalk. Kick his ass? Not legally, but sure he could do it without general fear of losing his life, but he elevated it to another level and Zimmerman protected his life.

Abuse Liability:ChaosStar: Popcorn Johnny: bugontherug: In that case, you have no idea either. Or even that his head hit the pavement at all. If we can't reason from the medical evidence, we're left with Zimmerman's word. And his word means nothing.

Of course I have no idea how hard his head hit, never said I did. All we know is that Zimmerman said that his head struck the pavement more than once and that Trayvon was responsible for it. The evidence at the scene supports his version of events. Grass on his back, lacerations to the back of his head, and an eyewitness. What more would you like?

He wants to know the exact impact force, angle, and repetition of Zimmerman's head hitting the sidewalk because he's an anal little monkey that can't figure out that the single act of hitting someone's head on the sidewalk, regardless of how hard, constitutes lethal force and can be met with lethal force.

You said monkey and you're defending Zimmerman. I am aware of your motivations and am appalled sir

God damnitThe boss said if I make Jesse Jackson show up outside one more time he's gonna fire me./maybe I'll get Sharpton this time?

I don't know why you bother. Bugontherug doesn't have logic, they have a prejudiced certainty of what occurred between Zimmerman and Martin. They've been going at it for a year, making up more stories than Zimmerman. Let's see, things they've insisted were true:

- Zimmerman began the physical violence by "molesting" Martin- Zimmerman called Martin racial slurs before/during the molestation- Zimmerman only molested Martin because Martin was black- Zimmerman will be found guilty of "depraved heart murder"

They're clownshoes. Occasionally, some people who haven't been exposed to bug's evolving (lack of) sanity will read their tortuous "inferences" and think, "wow, they're really laying it out." Yeah, well, they've been doing that for a freaking year, and their story changes every thread, all based on their initial decision that whiter-than-white Zimmerman murdered a little black child because of racial animosity.

It's actually hilarious in the beginning, but it gets old after the dozenth thread. They're not all there, man.

ChaosStar:QueenMamaBee: Mid_mo_mad_man: QueenMamaBee: For those of y'all who think GZ was perfectly justified.... I'd like to see how many of you would like to go out and pick random people and follow them. See how often that behavior results in an ass-beating.

So I guess then you could kill those people and be perfectly justified?

Following someone warrants a beating? What kinda white trash trailer park you from? If I'm following you and you turn around and start hitting me your are the agressor. And yes I would shoot you.

If I'm doing nothing wrong, and you keep following me no matter how many times I try to lose you then I'm going to assume you mean to harm me in some way, and yes, I will hit you or pepper spray you. If we happen to be walking the same way on the sidewalk, that's one thing. If I duck off the path and away from you and you keep following, then YOU seem to be the one exhibiting "suspicious behavior".

No, you're the one being suspicious, ducking away from someone who may or may not be following you.You turn around and hit them or pepper spray them then you're going to jail for battery, or ending up with serious injuries/dead for randomly attacking someone for no reasonNo, them following you is not a reason. Sorry.

Actually, if you follow me home and I try to talk a winding, alternative route in the hopes of keeping you from knowing where I live, and BLOCKS LATER you're still there behind me, it's self-defense on MY part, not yours.

Satanic_Hamster:Hobodeluxe: so Zimmerman told the neighborhood watch lady that he was asked by the HOA to form a watch program but the HOA guy says that he didn't think they needed one and ZImmerman came to him about it.sounds like he lied to her.

I'd be willing to bet that no where in the US has a HOA ever said, "Man, we need THIS GUY to form a watch program." At best they sent out a memo asking if anyone is interested. And from previous reports, Zimmerman was the only person in the community to join.

He didn't really "join" anything, as there was no organization there before in that HOA, nor did he ever join the national organization he claimed to be a member of, nor did anyone file for a charter for that neighborhood.

The term he used to describe himself; "Neighborhood Watch Captain", is misleading on multiple levels; it implies he was 1) a member of a specific organization that he was not, 2) that he was operating under its charter, and 3) that he was in a position of authority or leadership over others within that group.

In fact, he was only a lone guy with a gun with no training, no position, and no membership. He wasn't a 'Captain' of anything. He was a lone guy with a gun prowling around looking for 'these assholes'.The correct term for that is "Vigilante", not "Watch Captain"

BraveNewCheneyWorld:bugontherug: The real conjecture here is that Trayvon started a fight, or did anything other than defend himself against a hostile lethally armed assailant who hunted and harassed him for no good reason.

Because Treyvon Martin doubled back simply to thank Zimmerman for keeping the neighborhood safe.

ChaosStar:Abuse Liability: ChaosStar: Popcorn Johnny: bugontherug: In that case, you have no idea either. Or even that his head hit the pavement at all. If we can't reason from the medical evidence, we're left with Zimmerman's word. And his word means nothing.

Of course I have no idea how hard his head hit, never said I did. All we know is that Zimmerman said that his head struck the pavement more than once and that Trayvon was responsible for it. The evidence at the scene supports his version of events. Grass on his back, lacerations to the back of his head, and an eyewitness. What more would you like?

He wants to know the exact impact force, angle, and repetition of Zimmerman's head hitting the sidewalk because he's an anal little monkey that can't figure out that the single act of hitting someone's head on the sidewalk, regardless of how hard, constitutes lethal force and can be met with lethal force.

You said monkey and you're defending Zimmerman. I am aware of your motivations and am appalled sir

God damnitThe boss said if I make Jesse Jackson show up outside one more time he's gonna fire me./maybe I'll get Sharpton this time?

Well the guy I was teasing at least understood I was being sarcastic... Poe's law maybe?

I don't know why you bother. Bugontherug doesn't have logic, they have a prejudiced certainty of what occurred between Zimmerman and Martin. They've been going at it for a year, making up more stories than Zimmerman. Let's see, things they've insisted were true:

QueenMamaBee:ChaosStar: QueenMamaBee: Mid_mo_mad_man: QueenMamaBee: For those of y'all who think GZ was perfectly justified.... I'd like to see how many of you would like to go out and pick random people and follow them. See how often that behavior results in an ass-beating.

So I guess then you could kill those people and be perfectly justified?

Following someone warrants a beating? What kinda white trash trailer park you from? If I'm following you and you turn around and start hitting me your are the agressor. And yes I would shoot you.

If I'm doing nothing wrong, and you keep following me no matter how many times I try to lose you then I'm going to assume you mean to harm me in some way, and yes, I will hit you or pepper spray you. If we happen to be walking the same way on the sidewalk, that's one thing. If I duck off the path and away from you and you keep following, then YOU seem to be the one exhibiting "suspicious behavior".

No, you're the one being suspicious, ducking away from someone who may or may not be following you.You turn around and hit them or pepper spray them then you're going to jail for battery, or ending up with serious injuries/dead for randomly attacking someone for no reasonNo, them following you is not a reason. Sorry.

If they're not following me when I duck away, then end of problem. They're not there anymore. However, if I'm minding my own business and some fool starts tailing me, then more than likely their motives aren't pure. I wouldn't at all mind explaining my reasoning to the police while they're washing the pepper spray from the dude's eyes. If I'm walking from the store to my house, and I feel like the person is following me, then I'd rather not lead creepy guy to my front door. So I change direction... if he's not really chasing me, then he's not going to change direction when I do, and no problem. If he is chasing me, then I don't have much to lose by spraying him in the face, am i?

Lets look at it like this:You're going from point A to point BYou notice someone behind you, you think they are following you and you don't want to lead them to point B.You turn and are now heading to point CThe person you think is following you also turns to head to point CYou turn again and are now heading to point DThe person you think is following you also turns to head to point DYou freak out because now you're sure they're following youYou pepper spray the person you thought was following youTurns out the person you thought was following you was going point D the entire time and just coincidentally took the same route you did.They call the police, you're arrested for battery and now have a police record.

You have nothing to base your fear on except your assumptions and self defense laws don't work like that.

Which does nothing to undermine the strength of the inference that Zimmerman believed Trayvon a criminal...

Which was legally issued.

Which does nothing to undermine the strength of the inference that Zimmerman was lethally armed... nor the inference which flows from that that Zimmerman had special confidence in his ability to handle a fight.

There's no evidence that he was responsible for anything more than trying to keep an eye on Treyvon's location while he waited for the police,

Which in no way undermines the inference that he at first tried to chase Trayvon, nor the inference which flows from that that he was willing to confront Trayvon...

who he called for assistance before any of this went down. And we all know that vigilantes are well known for calling the police...

This is the first thing you've said here with any actual probative value, though I think it goes both ways. I think Zimmerman's real purpose in calling the police was to manufacture plausibility to justify a shooting. Hence the crap about "he's got something in his hand." He's read a few police reports where cops justify shooting practically anyone with the magic phrase "suspect appeared to have an object in his hand," even when it turns out to be koosh toy.

I appreciate most people find that implausible. You have to be acquainted with the flimsy bullsh*t police routinely use to justify shooting people to read it that way. So the fact that in my view he's undercharged is very helpful here. The argument isn't that Zimmerman undertook this series of events with the purpose at the outset to kill Martin. But rather that at some point during the course of conduct he decided to kill Zimmerman because of his ill will towards him.

For that reason, that he called the police is only minimally probative, strongly outweighed by the other evidence. Though it is a fair point.

Apparently, an overweight Zimmerman was able to overshoot Treyvon Martin on his route home after only 10 seconds of running, and got so far ahead that he was able to stay on the phone for an extended period of time with dispatch, which clocks Zimmerman's sprint at about 150mph. Treyvon certainly didn't double back to give someone an asskicking for daring to suspect that he, a stranger in a gated community might be a burglar.

None of this undermines the inference that Trayvon was conducting himself lawfully, seeking only to get snacks for him and his buddy. Or provides anything other than pure speculation on a motive for Trayvon to start a fight.

And, btw, Trayvon wasn't a "stranger." He was going to his dad's house nearby. Neither did he have any reason to believe Zimmerman suspected him of a crime. All he knew was that a creepy, hostile, cursing man was staring at him and following him around,

The only suspicious character in that neighborhood that night was named George Zimmerman. If Trayvon did backtrack, it wasn't to start a fight. It was to keep an eye on the threat Zimmerman posed to his community. There had, after all, been several break-ins recently.

Ah, "anyone who believes Zimmerman is a racist".

Didn't say that. Said the only reason people think Zimmerman's implausibly one-sided action movie yarn is plausible is because of race. This is mainly subconscious, and comes from the permeation of our culture with racist messages. When decent people make themselves aware of this kind of subconscious bias, they strive to overcome it. Zimmerman partisans do not.

Zimmerman didn't know the flashlight didn't work until he was out of the truck, you can hear him smacking it in the audio. Was presented to the jury yesterday by the defense with no objection from the prosecution. Move on friend.

No, it doesn't. Defending Zimmerman doesn't even make one wrong, as he will most likely walk. It does, however, make one an ass. Defending a a man that instigated a situation that ended with him shooting and killing a 17 year old that was simply walking home. A 17 year old that outside of Zimmerman's "suspicion" and apparent pathological need to interfere would have spent the rest of that evening watching the NBA All-Star game. A man that has shown a willingness to mislead the court. A man that is pretty clearly a douche nozzle. And a bit ironical, the worst element of an HOA. And we all know that next to Illinois Nazis, HOA's are the most hated groups in existence to most Farkers.

CliChe Guevara:He didn't really "join" anything, as there was no organization there before in that HOA, nor did he ever join the national organization he claimed to be a member of, nor did anyone file for a charter for that neighborhood.

The term he used to describe himself; "Neighborhood Watch Captain", is misleading on multiple levels; it implies he was 1) a member of a specific organization that he was not, 2) that he was operating under its charter, and 3) that he was in a position of authority or leadership over others within that group.

In fact, he was only a lone guy with a gun with no training, no position, and no membership. He wasn't a 'Captain' of anything. He was a lone guy with a gun prowling around looking for 'these assholes'.The correct term for that is "Vigilante", not "Watch Captain"

Oh, I know. I more consider him: "Creepy guy with a gun following around random teenagers for no reason."

QueenMamaBee:If they're not following me when I duck away, then end of problem. They're not there anymore. However, if I'm minding my own business and some fool starts tailing me, then more than likely their motives aren't pure. I wouldn't at all mind explaining my reasoning to the police while they're washing the pepper spray from the dude's eyes. If I'm walking from the store to my house, and I feel like the person is following me, then I'd rather not lead creepy guy to my front door. So I change direction... if he's not really chasing me, then he's not going to change direction when I do, and no problem. If he is chasing me, then I don't have much to lose by spraying him in the face, am i?

If they haven't done anything to you, you're losing 3 years of your life in prison. Please show us in the law where you are justified in using force to prevent someone from walking in the same place you're walking.

The My Little Pony Killer:ChaosStar: QueenMamaBee: Mid_mo_mad_man: QueenMamaBee: For those of y'all who think GZ was perfectly justified.... I'd like to see how many of you would like to go out and pick random people and follow them. See how often that behavior results in an ass-beating.

So I guess then you could kill those people and be perfectly justified?

Following someone warrants a beating? What kinda white trash trailer park you from? If I'm following you and you turn around and start hitting me your are the agressor. And yes I would shoot you.

If I'm doing nothing wrong, and you keep following me no matter how many times I try to lose you then I'm going to assume you mean to harm me in some way, and yes, I will hit you or pepper spray you. If we happen to be walking the same way on the sidewalk, that's one thing. If I duck off the path and away from you and you keep following, then YOU seem to be the one exhibiting "suspicious behavior".

No, you're the one being suspicious, ducking away from someone who may or may not be following you.You turn around and hit them or pepper spray them then you're going to jail for battery, or ending up with serious injuries/dead for randomly attacking someone for no reasonNo, them following you is not a reason. Sorry.

Actually, if you follow me home and I try to talk a winding, alternative route in the hopes of keeping you from knowing where I live, and BLOCKS LATER you're still there behind me, it's self-defense on MY part, not yours.

If you turn and attack them?No, sorry, that's not self defense.As has been stated many, many,many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many times throughout the course of these threads, simply following someone is not illegal ant it is not a hostile act.Creepy? YesUnnerving? YesCause for concern? YesIllegal? NoGrounds for defending yourself? No

bugontherug:This is the first thing you've said here with any actual probative value, though I think it goes both ways. I think Zimmerman's real purpose in calling the police was to manufacture plausibility to justify a shooting.

You sir have gone full retard, circled back, and then gone full retard a complete second time if you honestly believe this.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:QueenMamaBee: If they're not following me when I duck away, then end of problem. They're not there anymore. However, if I'm minding my own business and some fool starts tailing me, then more than likely their motives aren't pure. I wouldn't at all mind explaining my reasoning to the police while they're washing the pepper spray from the dude's eyes. If I'm walking from the store to my house, and I feel like the person is following me, then I'd rather not lead creepy guy to my front door. So I change direction... if he's not really chasing me, then he's not going to change direction when I do, and no problem. If he is chasing me, then I don't have much to lose by spraying him in the face, am i?

If they haven't done anything to you, you're losing 3 years of your life in prison. Please show us in the law where you are justified in using force to prevent someone from walking in the same place you're walking.

This is why I spray everyone around me, all the time. In line at the grocery store. The bank. My kid's third grade class.

I don't know why you bother. Bugontherug doesn't have logic, they have a prejudiced certainty of what occurred between Zimmerman and Martin. They've been going at it for a year, making up more stories than Zimmerman. Let's see, things they've insisted were true:

Um, you would think after a year of this you might get at least one tiny fragment of reality through your head;

NO. He wasn't.

NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.); "The alleged action of a 'self-appointed neighborhood watchman' last month in Sanford, FL significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program", "NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program."

Director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association, Chris Tutko; "If Zimmerman had tried to join or start a registered group, he would have been stopped. The fact that Zimmerman was known to have made over 40 calls to police to report suspicious activities in recent months would have raised suspicions ofhim. If the police were called that many times, you look at what the end game was," he said. "Was there anything found? If nothing was found, that person needs to be counseled, or reeducated, or otherwise told you are not going to be allowed on the Neighborhood Watch."

Zimmerman didn't know the flashlight didn't work until he was out of the truck, you can hear him smacking it in the audio. Was presented to the jury yesterday by the defense with no objection from the prosecution. Move on friend.

But why would a highly trained and dedicated protector of the peace like George Zimmerman, who had the foresight to bring a loaded gun with him, NOT check to see if his flash light worked before going out on patrol duty?

Proved by his chasing of Trayvon after the boy ran. There is non-hearsay evidence that he chased Trayvon. We can infer it, as did the police dispatcher, from the sounds of a chase through the phone line. I suppose we have to rely on Zimmerman's other statements in the course of that conversation to give us the context which proves that. So it may be fair to say that Zimmmerman's willingness to confront, as evidenced by his decision to chase Trayvon, is hearsay.

But that doesn't mean it's unreliable.

It also isn't evidence of a crime. It's not against the law to follow somebody, or even to confront them verbally in a non-threatening way. It's not against the law to carry a properly licensed concealed firearm while doing so. If you're trying to convince me that Zimmerman is an overzealous, confrontational, wanna-be cop, don't bother, I already firmly believe that. However, that isn't a crime.

bugontherug:So no, this isn't really hearsay. And it's all inference, not conjecture. In fact, the inferences that Zimmerman harbored ill-will towards Trayvon, believed Trayvon a criminal, had a motive to murder him, and was lethally armed cannot be disputed with any credibility. You might dispute the probative value of each proposition so proved, but the propositions themselves are wrought-iron.

Likewise, the lack of credible evidence for any reason for Trayvon Martin to start a fight really isn't hearsay. It's just proved by the absence of credible evidence. Note: I didn't say "lack of evidencre." I said lack of "credible" evidence. There is evidence--in the form of Zimmerman's implausibly one-sided action movie narrative--but it is not credible. And the incredibility of that narrative itself is probative of Zimmerman's guilt.

The real conjecture here is that Trayvon started a fight, or did anything other than defend himself against a hostile lethally armed assailant who hunted and harassed him for no good reason.

You have GOT to be trolling. You really must be. There is no other reason for this disconnect from reality and evidence. I have said this before and I say it again - Trayvon is dead because he thought he was being "dissed" and went back to beat up Zimmerman. The fact that there was a fight AT ALL is because instead of going home, instead of calling the police, instead of saying "HEY DUDE I LIVE RIGHT OVER HERE, COME SEE MY HOUSE AND MEET MY DAD" he tried to intimidate Zimmerman, ran from Zimmerman, hid from Zimmerman, looped back and tried to beat up Zimmerman. There simply is no other reason that Trayvon is dead. NONE. Not one shred of evidence shows ANYTHING other than that ZImmerman reported Trayvon to the police, attempted and failed to keep Trayvon in sight, and then was attacked by Trayvon viciously, forcing Zimmerman to KILL a 17 year old gang banger wanna-be who couldn't just "let this go" and head home.

I can't help but notice how Zimmerman's people keep resorting to ad hominem personal attacks, while the Martin people are mostly making good arguments. That makes me think Zimmerman's defense is pretty weak. I don't know much about this case, but reading this thread, it doesn't look good for Zimmerman.

CliChe Guevara:He didn't really "join" anything, as there was no organization there before in that HOA, nor did he ever join the national organization he claimed to be a member of, nor did anyone file for a charter for that neighborhood.

The term he used to describe himself; "Neighborhood Watch Captain", is misleading on multiple levels; it implies he was 1) a member of a specific organization that he was not, 2) that he was operating under its charter, and 3) that he was in a position of authority or leadership over others within that group.

In fact, he was only a lone guy with a gun with no training, no position, and no membership. He wasn't a 'Captain' of anything. He was a lone guy with a gun prowling around looking for 'these assholes'.The correct term for that is "Vigilante", not "Watch Captain"

Did you follow any of this morning's testimony? Specifically that of Wendy Dorival, who set up Neighborhood Watch programs for the Sanford Police Dept.?

She spoke in detail about GZ and he role in the Neighborhood Watch program in his gated community. It is difficult to reconcile her testimony with your characterization of GZ.

Which does nothing to undermine the strength of the inference that Zimmerman believed Trayvon a criminal...

Which was legally issued.

Which does nothing to undermine the strength of the inference that Zimmerman was lethally armed... nor the inference which flows from that that Zimmerman had special confidence in his ability to handle a fight.

There's no evidence that he was responsible for anything more than trying to keep an eye on Treyvon's location while he waited for the police,

Which in no way undermines the inference that he at first tried to chase Trayvon, nor the inference which flows from that that he was willing to confront Trayvon...

Know what a synonym of inference is? CONJECTURE!

who he called for assistance before any of this went down. And we all know that vigilantes are well known for calling the police...

This is the first thing you've said here with any actual probative value, though I think it goes both ways. I think Zimmerman's real purpose in calling the police was to manufacture plausibility to justify a shooting. Hence the crap about "he's got something in his hand." He's read a few police reports where cops justify shooting practically anyone with the magic phrase "suspect appeared to have an object in his hand," even when it turns out to be koosh toy.

This is so stupid, you're assuming that the criminal mastermind GZ also could see into the future and know that Martin would return to within feet of where GZ was standing.

bugontherug:Apparently, an overweight Zimmerman was able to overshoot Treyvon Martin on his route home after only 10 seconds of running, and got so far ahead that he was able to stay on the phone for an extended period of time with dispatch, which clocks Zimmerman's sprint at about 150mph. Treyvon certainly didn't double back to give someone an asskicking for daring to suspect that he, a stranger in a gated community might be a burglar.

None of this undermines the inference that Trayvon was conducting himself lawfully, seeking only to get snacks for him and his buddy. Or provides anything other than pure speculation on a motive for Trayvon to start a fight.

There's that word again.. In fact this isn't even debatable, Treyvon Martin turned around. He could have easily walked to his home in the time it took GZ to finish his phone call with dispatch.

bugontherug:And, btw, Trayvon wasn't a "stranger." He was going to his dad's house nearby. Neither did he have any reason to believe Zimmerman suspected him of a crime. All he knew was that a creepy, hostile, cursing man was staring at him and following him around,

Nobody's really a stranger because everyone knows someone? This is what you're reduced to arguing?

bugontherug:The only suspicious character in that neighborhood that night was named George Zimmerman. If Trayvon did backtrack, it wasn't to start a fight. It was to keep an eye on the threat Zimmerman posed to his community. There had, after all, been several break-ins recently.

Didn't say that. Said the only reason people think Zimmerman's implausibly one-sided action movie yarn is plausible is because of race. This is mainly subconscious, and comes from the permeation of our culture with racist messages. When decent people make themselves aware of this kind of subconscious bias, they strive to overcome it. Zimmerman partisans do not.

ChaosStar:Lets look at it like this:You're going from point A to point BYou notice someone behind you, you think they are following you and you don't want to lead them to point B.You turn and are now heading to point CThe person you think is following you also turns to head to point CYou turn again and are now heading to point DThe person you think is following you also turns to head to point D

You freak out because now you're sure they're following youYou pepper spray the person you thought was following youYou turn and demand to know why they are following you

Turns out the person you thought was following you was going point D the entire time and just Really IS following you

They already have called the police, you're arrested for battery and now have a police record.but shoot you and now you are deadYour attacker hadhave nothing to base their fear on but assumptions and self defense laws don't work like that except maybe in Florida

Zimmerman didn't know the flashlight didn't work until he was out of the truck, you can hear him smacking it in the audio. Was presented to the jury yesterday by the defense with no objection from the prosecution. Move on friend.

But why would a highly trained and dedicated protector of the peace like George Zimmerman, who had the foresight to bring a loaded gun with him, NOT check to see if his flash light worked before going out on patrol duty?

I patiently await your retraction and apology for misleading people about the provisions of Florida law.

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who...:2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself .

Looks like Zimmerman is farked.

Wait is there hope?

unless:(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;

There is hope, but it will depend on whether a jury believes that Z. had a reosanably fear he was about to be beaten to death or given a crippling beating, and if they think he tried everything he could before pulling his gun.

ChaosStar:bugontherug: This is the first thing you've said here with any actual probative value, though I think it goes both ways. I think Zimmerman's real purpose in calling the police was to manufacture plausibility to justify a shooting.

You sir have gone full retard, circled back, and then gone full retard a complete second time if you honestly believe this.